UNC-Chapel Hill say Nikole Hannah-Jones' tenure was revoked b/c she did not come from a “traditional academic-type background�

Figures somebody that stupid would come from the University of Ninth Choice.

Didn't she say something controversial?

Plus no PhD.

Without a Ph.D., she doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

She EXTREMELY woke

[quote] Without a Ph.D., she doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

At least she can stand.

She basically just makes stuff up and calls it history. When real historians call her on what is clearly bullshit, she either erases it, or calls or says she is portraying "a larger truth".

She's an incompetent, who got her job through affirmative action, and has proven to teach nonsense. Now that she has not been granted tenure, she claims racism. " traditional academic-type background" is a euphemism for " teaching facts."

She got fired because her 1619 Project is ahistorical and based on lies.

She's basically a glorified adjunct. She hasn't earned a tenured position.

Her tenure was not "revoked". She never had tenure. It was decided not to grant it. It is unusual however for a board of trustees to go against administrative and faculty recommendations for tenure. But legally tenure is granted by the board of trustees.

It will be spun as "systemic racism" or just another example of "white supremacy" on the laundry list of bad shows on MSNBC. 🙄

We’re going to look back at the fiction this person tried to peddle and be ashamed it ever got published.

At least I hope so.

She’s expressed her open prejudice against Native Americans several time yet remains “uncancelled”. Wonder why.

It is not at all unusual for tenure to be denied at the university level after a positive departmental recommendation, and all the hand-wringing that accompanies denials of prominent individuals demonstrates that the general public has no idea how tenure works, particularly at R1 institutions. A university Board of Trustees has nothing to do with this process; after the department votes, a dossier consisting of the candidate's scholarship is sent to 3-5 external reviewers from peer institutions who write honest assessments of this scholarship and the candidate's broader standing in the field. This dossier and external letters, along with documents pertaining to the candidate's teaching and campus service records, are then reviewed by an ad hoc committee comprised of tenured professors outside of the department along with relevant dean(s), the provost and then the president, who makes the final decision. Hannah-Jones' lack of PhD is immaterial here because she teaches in a journalism school, not in a traditional humanities department like English or Philosophy where the PhD is the terminal degree. Obviously her work or her personality was found wanting by somebody along the way, which is enough to scuttle the whole process, and she'll likely never find out who or why. But that's the risk anybody accepts when they submit themselves to the tenure process, which is intentionally kept opaque. Despite the lip service paid to equity and inclusion, universities--like the Catholic Church--are not democratic institutions, they rely on pre-modern power structures.

R12- She’ll say that all of the black people attacking Asians in NYC is caused by WHITE SUPREMACY.

"The campus’s Board of Trustees should not have any role in academic-hiring decisions whatsoever, and neither should the systemwide Board of Governors, which was lobbied to prevent Hannah-Jones’s appointment. It is reasonable to suppose that the governors passed on the pressure to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Governors’ chair, Randall C. Ramsey, builds and sells boats. The vice chair, Wendy Floyd Murphy, “is involved in the hospitality segment.” Most other members are equally unqualified to judge any tenure case in any field. The same is true for the Board of Trustees: The chair, Richard Y. Stevens, is a corporate lawyer and former GOP state senator. The vice chair, R. Gene Davis Jr., is another corporate lawyer, with “experience in real-estate law, business formation, estate planning, and estate administration.”

R7- If she ever got fired from the NYT she would be screaming RACISM .

R16, she herself isn't screaming anything. She has said nothing publically about her denial d tenure, and the outrage is coming from her academic colleagues, who object that a right-wing board of trustees who have no academic credentials have the power to deny tenure to a Pulitzer Prize-winning NY Times journalist strictly for political reasons. She has more than enough reasons to receive tenure.

She has zillions of videos on youtube claiming NYC schools are SEGREGATED. In one of her videos she said she sends her daughter to a school that has white and black students among other racial groups but then complains that the school is SELECTIVELY integrated. She's a bottomless well of grievances.

RF17 What you posted can be summed up as "blah blah blah"

"Pulitzer Prize" doesn't mean SHIT.

Writing, or more accurately, spewing for the NY Times doesn't mean SHIT.

This is why the soft studies (history, sociology etc) are so rife with charlatans posing as academics. You get to make up shit and no colleague will challenge you, especially if you come from a oppressed group.

This ain't the hard sciences where you can't get away with shit like that.

R17 👆

R19, what doesn't mean shit is a boat salesman and a corporate lawyer for a GOP state senator weighing in on academic credentials. So yeah, hunty, the Pulitzer Prize DOES mean something aademically, unless you're a moron, and everything you say suggests you are.

If you look back on her history, she’s been filing grievance claims since she was an undergrad at Norte Dame nearly 30 years ago. She is, as r19 puts it, a charlatan who has shrewdly used racial animus to her advantage.

Except she has said nothing about this. Her colleagues have. The real heart of the matter is that this board of trustees, none of whom are academics, are decifing who gets tenure. It's the academics themselves who are vocal about this, and they have a right.

R22- Jones was quiet when a colleague of hers at the NYT was fired for using the N word in explaining racism to some students. She was probably happy that there was one less WHITE male working at the NYT.

A lot of rightwingers posting on this thread. Historians and academics who actually know something of her work, and of how hires and promotions in a university work, support her and are outraged at the way conservative Republicans on boards of trustees are making hiring decisions based on politics.

As others have noted, real historians, even left-leaning ones have been horrified by two things:

a) the shoddiness of her research

b) the fact that she is a journalist trying to pass herself off as a historian. They feel it completely undermines what they do and that it's no different than a journalist doing a bunch of research on Covid and then calling themselves a doctor.

The latter is her real sin.

The 1619 Project is a gift to conservatives because it is so shoddily researched BECAUSE NO ACTUAL HISTORIANS WERE INVOLVED. The underlying premise has many valid points about racism and US history, but they will be erased because she did such a piss poor job

The idea that a Pulizer Prize in academic circles is meaningless is so ludicrous that it's laughable. What? You say someone has won a MacArthur or a Nobel? Meaningless! This boat salesman on the Board of Trustees decides!

LMFAO!

That's just not true R25

Historians on the left were particularly annoyed by her because she got much more press for her project, got it adopted into schools around the country and so much of it is based on incorrect and shoddy research and they feel is undermines their own work.

The bottom line is that her fellow academics and the university itself should get to decide who among their faculty gets tenure, not a board of trustees with zero academic credentials.

this is the 1619th time we have discussed these ongoing racial issues

R25 LOL a lot of rightwingers posting on this thread. Because they disagree with me they're conservative, rightwingers, alt right, white supremists, part of the problem on and on and on and it never gets old.

🙄

No, R31, because they have used all the talking points of right-wingers.

R32 Comments used to support a view are now qualified as "talking points".

What would qualify as a comment that's in opposition to yours and NOT considered a talking point, in your opinion? Just curious.

At least Jones photo at the NYT doesn't show her eyes rolling back into her head while she rests her head on her hands like our FAVORITE DL gal Roxane Gay.

What would, R33? A comment in support of non-academic Republican businessmen holding sway over a university as an acceptable state of affairs. Yet none of the right-wingers here want to address that--that it should be up to the university itself to decide, not a non-academic, Republican board of trustees.

Her denial of tenure is political and it's motivated by the right wing, in the same way that Reagan imposed his will as governor of CA and got Angela Davis fired from her teaching job.

By the way, OP, it's not UNC-Chapel Hill itself that denied her tenure, nor was it revoked (because she never had it to begin with). It's the right-wing board of trustees, who shouldn't have any say in this and would not at most academic institutions. THAT'S the issue.

R3. Tenured Professor here, too (and yes, with PhD in field). What you say is complete nonsense. She is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. In that field, a masters with the awards would more than compensate for the lack of PhDs (there are relatively few journalism with doctorates, as is true with acing professors, and other professional fields). In addition, the question of her academic credentials would have been spelled out before the appointment was even begun. You may be tenured, but it seems clear you don’t how academia works. Like her or not, she has credentials far superior to most journalists working in academia and this was clearly a political decision, not an academic one.

R35 So the ONLY political party that can occupy a Board of ANYTHING are Democrats? You'll never trust any action by a group of people who don't vote the way you do? Boards of Trustees come from a variety of backgrounds. They're usually successful in some manner and have the trust of the university to oversee affairs from afar. Every uni has one and most corporations along with non profits have them. You're saying they can only be occupied by a certain political leaning?

Isn't that the height of hypocrisy?

What could be funnier than the fool upthread who said winning a Pulitzer Prize "doesn't mean shit" when the Pulitzer Prize winner teaches IN THE JOURNALISM SCHOOL!!!

R39, you're missing the point--there shouldn't be ANY political party weighing in on academic tenure, certainly not a board who has no academic credentials who are made up of shills like corporate lawyers to GOP state sentators.

Nice straw man at R39.

What R41 said.

On the internet, anyone can be a tenured professor with a PhD

In OP's photo what's up with the BOZO THE CLOWN hair?

R38 r40 Her “Pulitzer prize” was not for JOURNALISM nor for HISTORY. It was for personal opinion. Embarrassing. The NYT didn’t even get the PP for the 1619 project.

That's like getting an Oscar for “best makeup.”

She has zero qualifications to be teaching anything, let alone journalism, at a university level. Well, maybe self-promotion. In six years at the NYT she had like 25 by-line articles. Less than 5 a year.

R45- Her qualifications are that she's BLACK and a WOMAN.

R45, there's no category for "personal opinion." It was, in fact, a Pulitzer Prize for "Commentary," a legitimate category. Where's your Pulitzer--for anything? Or your Oscar, or anything else?

[quote]R7 She got her job through affirmative action

Rather than by just being white

“Right-wing” is nothing more than a scareword that oligarchs use to describe anyone or anything that challenges their hegemony.

[quote] Rather than just by being white.

If a white woman had written a fictitious screed about how all the racial problems in America were the fault of black people, I doubt she would have been hired by the NYT.

The "embarrassing" writers who "embarrassingly" won a Pulitzer for Commentary include Art Buchwald, George Will, William Safire, Murray Kempton, Anna Quindlen...

Sure Jan, R49.

Trite stock non-response is trite, R52.

Does she mention the complicity of Africans selling their own into slavery?

... after long years of thoughtful or entertaining commentary, r51. Not for one project that she wrote the intro to.

You’re comparing Anna Nikole-Jones to Art Buchwald and Anna Quinlen etc? Nice. At least they never tried to pass themselves off as historians.

Okay, R53--then prove what you say with examples--who are all these oligarchs you're alluding to? Or better yet, prove that people who are legitimately decrying denying her tenure based on politics are "oligarchs use to describe anyone or anything that challenges their hegemony."

R55, the argument was that "Commentary" wasn't a legitimate Pulizter category. Do keep up.

The point trying to be made above was to belittle her award by saying it was a bullshit Pulitzer category, anyway, and not look at the category itself and who has won it.

No, the point is that the term “Pulitzer Prize-winning” is being misleadingly being used in this thread to suggest HNJ has a professional background steeped in history or journalism (6 yrs at NYT) and that therefore she deserves tenure. Just the facts.

Do keep up.

Her hair alone should have been cause to deny her tenure.

No, R59, that was not the point upthread. The category itself was mocked as "personal opinion." Whether she deserves tenure or not should be decided by the university itself--the dean, the professors--all of whom have objected to the board of non-accadmics making the decision. Do keep up.

What’s wrong with her hair, r60? It’s too nappy for 4u?

She's also won a MacArthur fellowship, a George Polk JOURNALISM award...all those things are actually things that recommend tenure 99% of the time.

R61 I’m sure if the professors decided on who got tenure, there would be no politics involved 🙄.

Better they decide than a non-academic board of corporate lawyer shills for the GOP, R64.🙄

Look at all the awards shes received--for journalism:2007, 2008, 2010: Society of Professional Journalists, Pacific Northwest, Excellence in Journalism Award[13] 2012: Gannett Foundation Innovation in Watchdog Journalism Award[13] 2013: Sidney Award[53] 2013: Columbia University, Paul Tobenkin Memorial Award[54] 2015: National Awards for Education Reporting, first prize, beat reporting 2015: National Association of Black Journalists, Journalist of the Year[55][56] 2015: National Magazine Award finalist, public interest 2015: Education Writers Association, Fred M. Hechinger Grand Prize for Distinguished Education Reporting[57] 2015: Emerson College President's Award for Civic Leadership 2015: The Root 100[58] 2016: George Polk Award, radio reporting[59] 2017: MacArthur Foundation Fellowship[29] 2017: National Magazine Award winner, public interest[60] 2019: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Distinguished Alumna Award[61] 2020: 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary[34]

Yeah but those weren’t the awards people were referencing upthread—it was the PULITZER.

They weren’t referencing her being the “National Magazine finalist” or Civic Leadership or Distinguished Alumna, or Pacific Northwest Journalists.

R60 watch out that’s a micro aggression

R62 are you blind? If so, please get off the internet.

And I'm saying, R66, that she's being slandered as not being a real journalist--so I listed ALL the awards she's gotten for journalism.

And this includes the Pulitzer, which, becasuse she won it, was suddenly not a legit category of Pulitzer.

It's called moving the goal post.

Indians owned Black slaves.

The Union illegally seized? What bullshit. It was a war.

[quote] Okay, [R53]--then prove what you say with examples--who are all these oligarchs you're alluding to? Or better yet, prove that people who are legitimately decrying denying her tenure based on politics are "oligarchs use to describe anyone or anything that challenges their hegemony."

You ask me to cite my work but all you can offer in rebuttal is a fucking [italic]Brady Bunch[/italic] reference to go with your self-refuting talking points?

There is no reason Black slaveowners should have had to give up their slaves. Taking them away was pure racism.

Maybe some academics had problems with facts she ignored to make her point, after the ones she consultedtried to correct her mistakes.

That said, she is a successful if not honest journalist, though ignoring facts to make the narrative work is pretty standard these days.

No. R69. It’s called setting the record straight. She did not win a Pulitzer for being a historian nor for any journalism involved in the 1619 project (which itself did not win the Pulitzer, despite being submitted for one).

She won the Commentary award. Which is, basically, opinion.

And if she (and you) can’t tell the difference between commentary and actual journalism, then she should not get tenure in anything remotely associated with journalism.

[quote]she herself isn't screaming anything

I looked up what she supposedly said during one of the other threads about this and you are right, she hasn't said anything, but you'd think, if you listened to the "blah blah blah Pulitzers don't mean shit" guys, that she's been shouting about this non stop. There are a lot of lies on this thread.

So, in other words, R72, you still offer nothing to support your highblown assertions of hegemony?

That which was presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, like the laughable claim that UNC is right-wing in any way, shape, or form.

R75, she won it, period, and for a legitimate category. Otherwise you're saying Art Buchwald, George Will, illegitimately received Pulitzers for just offering their opinion, which is ridiculous. It's called criticism.

R78, you've ignored (conveniently) who's on the board, includin a corporate lawyer for a GOP state senator, a boat salesman, and other total non-academics.

If UNC wanted to hire her for anything, the B-School should look into hiring her as a professor of marketing

Because that's really what the 1619 Project was -- a very successful exercise in marketing

I ignored nothing. The myth that corporate ameriKKKa is "right-wing" is just that: a myth.

University of Phoenix or Devry might be a better fit

Says you, R80. The NY Times published it. If you consider the project all marketing (of which she was just one of the contributors) that's your problem.

And yeah, R81, you did, because you offer no response of who makes up the board.

The fact that she was hired at all disproves your assertion.

No, R84, because the board didn't weigh in on her hiring. So it disproves nothing.

They did nothing to stop it. They allowed it to get to this point.

They don't weigh in on every hiring, R86. They didn't know to stop her hiring when she was first hired.

No. R79. The issue is whether her Pulitzer qualifies her to a lifetime appointment as full university professor, which other—no, correction—which ACTUAL scholars labor for years to attain.

Despite NYT's tepid defense of the 1619 project, actual scholars—actual professors—in American history, and in slavery, and in the Civil War, and Emancipation, etc., have criticized it, witheringly. It is a thoroughly disputed take on US history, although it does offer a unique take, true.

.. oh, forgot to add, actual scholars on the American Revolution ...

R88, a Pulitzer, like a MacArthur, a Nobel--any major award in one's field--is considered as good or better than a PhD. It's excellent cachet for the university itself. Toni Morrison had an MA and she was offered the moon, no doubt, so that Princeton could have her on their faculty.

You’re right, r90. HNJ should also teach creative writing, like Toni Morrison.

Do not compare her to Toni Morrison, AS IF

She wrote a provocative article that was released during a time her ideas are trendy and it fits with the current editorial bent of The NY Times. That’s all.

This is why it's racist to tell Jews how to respond to invaders in our own country.

She’ll scream and cry “racism!” now that she’s been found out. Maybe she’ll even tweet a request for her followers to burn down the university in “protest.”

Go Duke!

R6-If she were a doctor we'd refer to her as a QUACK.

... but since she's a journalist, we refer to her as a HACK.

[quote]“Right-wing” is nothing more than a scareword that oligarchs use to describe anyone or anything that challenges their hegemony.

This thread seems to have attracted a lot of crazies (or maybe one with sock puppets?) who throw out bizarre, easily disprovable claims from the political right and then dig in when challenged. "Oligarchs" use "right-wing" as a straw man? Seriously? Maybe this poster is so mentally discombobulated that they're using "right-wing" when they mean "left-wing."

Name some actual scholars who made these withering criticisms R88

This was a purely political move by the trustees, who probably at gunpoint could not even accurately describe her work.

[quote] This is why the soft studies (history, sociology etc) are so rife with charlatans posing as academics. You get to make up shit and no colleague will challenge you, especially if you come from a oppressed group.

Your understanding of academia is twitter-grade nonsense. She wasn't up for tenure in a history department, and historians pretty much across the board rejected the 1619 Project as crap.

The 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory, but the MAGA response to it has been outsized and overblown. But both things are great places to start a real discussion and neither should be dismissed as "lets hate on white people" propaganda.

[quote] You may be tenured, but it seems clear you don’t how academia works.

I've been tenured for 15 years, and I have taught over the course of my career at a large private research institution, a large state university, and a liberal arts college, and I have served for several on my school's committee of tenure and promotion; yet I somehow know nothing of how academia works?

That's a baseless ad hominem attack meant to distract from the actual argument at hand.

I am unimpressed.

R98 see R74.

I'm not R38, but they aren't guilty of an ad hominem attack, R102. They said you don't know how academia works on the basis of your remarks about how academia works, not on the basis of some extraneous part of your character. You're the one introducing elements of your cv to prove that you understand the issue, when all they prove is that you have enough experience that you *should* understand the issue. I'm guessing your PhD isn't in logic.

Sorry, R99 see R74. There’s even criticism from black scholars.

[quote] about her denial d tenure,

Is that French for “denial of tenure?”

OK — criticisms and calls for correction issued by the following, JUST FOR STARTERS (not just the “small group of scholars” The Atlantic whines about):

William B. Allen, Emeritus Dean and Professor, Michigan State University Michael A. Burlingame, Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies, University of Illinois, Springfield Joseph R. Fornieri, Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology Allen C. Guelzo, Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University Peter Kolchin, Henry Clay Reed Professor Emeritus of History, University of Delaware Glenn W. LaFantasie, Frockt Family Professor of Civil War History and Director of the Institute for Civil War Studies, Western Kentucky University Lucas E. Morel, Professor of Politics, Washington & Lee University George C. Rable, Professor Emeritus, University of Alabama Diana J. Schaub, Professor of Political Science, Loyola University Colleen A. Sheehan, Professor of Political Science and Director, The Matthew J. Ryan Center, Villanova University Steven B. Smith, Alfred Cowles Professor of Political Science, Yale University. Michael P. Zuckert, N. Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame

—of George Washington Univ.'s History News Network (which MediaBias rates as “left center)

Lol r106

Oh, please, UNC-Chapel Hill didn't give her tenure because conservative hate her and the conservative government of North Carolina likely threatened the school's funding.

R109

Maybe they just didn’t give her tenure bc she thinks the US was actually founded in 1619, and that the colonists fought the American Revolution because the British wanted to end slavery.

R107. did you actually read Hannah=Jone's article? The discussion about one of the reasons the US may have want to secede from Britain was that Britain was moving towards ending slavery amounts to one to two lines in a multi-page, brilliantly written narrative. Plus, she puts that one thought in a long list of reasons. Much of it is conjecture and she says so.

The reaction by these scholars was over the top. When the right likes to point out that the scholars sent in the petition, they leave out that it refers to one line.

R110,

Too many schools are saddled by retarded Right wing trustees. It’s like they infest everywhere-even here.

Universities often give tenure to those who have made international names but don't have the standard degrees--particularly artists, composers, etc.

She's a journalist. What journalist has a PhD?

[quote] Much of it is conjecture and she says so.

Why does she include conjecture in what’s supposed to be rigorous history?

She sounds like a clown. (Which is fitting because she looks like one.)

Getting tenure nowadays tends to hinge upon how much grant money you can bring in. Her name attached to a university would likely bring in alot. She will do better elsewhere.

[quote]Why does she include conjecture in what’s supposed to be rigorous history?

I suggest you actually read her article.

[quote]Why does she include conjecture in what’s supposed to be rigorous history?

Um, that's what scholarly articles do. They gather evidence and make conclusions based on the history. That conclusion is almost always conjecture because another scholar can take the same material and come up with another conclusion.

[quote]She sounds like a clown. (Which is fitting because she looks like one.)

How's the weather in Moscow, Vlad?

[quote]Um, that's what scholarly articles do. They gather evidence and make conclusions based on the history. That conclusion is almost always conjecture because another scholar can take the same material and come up with another conclusion.

I think you're talking to people who may have never read a scholarly article in their lives.

[quote]Why does she include conjecture in what’s supposed to be rigorous history?

This is a false dicotomy. As R120 said, scholarly historians base their theses, which include speculation and conjecture (not mere guesswork), on verifiable and probable facts (I'd depart from R120's "another scholar can take the same material and come up with another conclusion," which sounds too absolute—some conclusions are pretty airtight). Rigorous historiography doesn't pretend to give definitive answers for everything, but offers lines of questioning based on the facts.

I don't think you're being fair R123 and I think you're holding this piece to an entirely different academic standard.

She was not being considered for a general professorship, she was named the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism. This is a position funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which focuses on art and journalism and has endowed positions at over ten universities focusing on different facets of journalism, and is meant to place high-level, working journalists in journalism schools. The UNC Hussman School of Journalism has worked in partnership with Knight for over three decades and this is the first time a new Knight Chair has not been offered tenure.

Reporting here in North Carolina all says that conservative groups, with the backing of the UNC Board of Governors and the GOP legislature, pressured the UNC-CH board for this decision. This is a continuation of over a decade of organized attacks by the GOP on the independence of the UNC system through reorganization and defunding of schools or programs which draw conservative ire.

The chancellor made the decision to offer a five year contract simply because NHJ is right for the job and the Board doesn’t have the ability to stop him. All of this has the potential to blow up because Hussman is one of the top schools in the country and graduates are sprinkled from top to bottom throughout the national media.

R62 that is a racist comment.

Whenever a state-funded school does something shocking and out of character like this, it is solely because it got pressured by the state govt.

ALWAYS

[quote] Getting tenure nowadays tends to hinge upon how much grant money you can bring in.

In the STEM fields, yes.

Not necessarily in journalism.

R128, she’s got a Pulitzer and a big name in journalism circles. What else would she need at this point?

Oh, support from the right wing

This is for the UNC School of Journalism.

She has proved herself to be a top journalist.

Of course this is completely political

Man, it really doesn't take much for most of you to go off about anyone non-white who gets to this point, meanwhile, we've seen this shit throughout the history of the country where woefully-inadequate whites get to ascend to levels where they never should've gotten, incl. the last president who wasn't qualified to pick up dog shit.

You really just get belligerent when it's any minority.

FIRE -- Foundation for Individual Right in Education -- has issued a statement. They are non-partisan and advocate for people on all sides of the political spectrum.

This is about academic freedom.

I'm embarrassed by what populates this thread. She challenges your world view and the mythology that was implanted in you in grammar school and you can't handle it. You devalue her work and her awards because of this. I can think of a dozen journ schools that would be thrilled to have her and where she could name her terms. But they're not public institutions in red states,

Matt McConaughey is a professor of dramatic technique at the University of Texas and talks about running for Governor. In his interviews, .he's a pot-addled moron and no record of scholarly writing. He has an Oscar, the highest award in his field. Would you be incensed if he applied for tenure, was supported by his peers but ultimately rejected? I somehow think not.

[quote] I'm embarrassed by what populates this thread. She challenges your world view and the mythology that was implanted in you in grammar school and you can't handle it.

And I’m embarrassed by the people that gobble up this tripe and refuse to think critically about the very obvious flaws in the 1619 Project.

You're missing the point, r135. The Board of Trustees did not reject her based on the quality of her scholarship.

Philosophy blogger Brian Leiter writes:

[quote]I hope they can take some kind of collective action about this political interference into academic appointments. It is astonishing to see the attempts to rationalize this naked attack on faculty autonomy. The issue is not whether any particular observer thinks Hannah-Jones "deserves" this appointment; I myself have noted plenty of serious scholarly criticisms of her work on the 1619 Project, but all of that is compatible with her being an appropriate choice for this position. She was vetted by the journalism faculty, recommended for a tenured position, and approved by all levels of the administration. Only the Board of Trustees rejected the recommendation for political reasons. Universities can't function in such an environment.

[quote] You're missing the point, [R135]. The Board of Trustees did not reject her based on the quality of her scholarship.

No I’m not. I was not commenting on the issue of tenure. I was responding to the poster that claims HNJ work “challenges” one’s world view and those who are skeptical of her claims simply “can’t handle it”.

At least 80% of this thread is two professors with different POVs on this bickering at each other.

I see, r137, and I did misinterpret your point.

And, for the record, I tend to side with the critics of the 1619 Project. But I also don't think she should have been denied tenure, as she was recommended for it by experts in her field -- I'm in literature, not journalism.

And r138, I have posted on this thread exactly three times: r132, r136, and r139

Cancel this bitch.

Posters like r140 are ruining DL

[quote] there shouldn't be ANY political party weighing in on academic tenure, certainly not a board who has no academic credentials who are made up of shills like corporate lawyers to GOP state sentators.

Do you feel the same way about civilian and non-experts weighing in on police issues? Surely the problems of people with no knowledge or expertise on the issues of safely policing, especially with police facing an armed population and violent criminals, could have a far more dangerous impact on the police and citizens than citizens without lofty academic credentials would have on tenure..

[Quote] You really just get belligerent when it's any minority.

Because like gays, we know how poorly minorities are treated solely because they are minorities and dare to challenge the majority

[Quote] very obvious flaws in the 1619 Project.

And what are they., exactly?

r144

[Quote] Do you feel the same way about civilian and non-experts weighing in on police issues?

Um, government has given police the right to carry weapons and shoot citizens when they see fit.

Of course politicians should weigh in.

r144

[Quote] And, for the record, I tend to side with the critics of the 1619 Project.

Please regale us with what those critics say about it

Please refer to r145 and r147, r148

R147, that’s hilarious!

You posted a “critique” of about 5 paragraphs that gives not a single concrete example of how 1619 is even remotely inaccurate.

And if r145 is paywalled

The critiques are not about facts. The right wing is angry that the US being called out for how the evils of slavery have infiltrated so much of today’s society

Whatever, r150. It's clear anything I could post would not suffice, so I'm not going to bother anymore, and let you claim victory.

Besides, the topic of this thread really isn't the merits of the 1619 Project, and as I already mentioned, I don't think she should have been denied tenure. This is about academic freedom.

R151, once again that letter says very little.

It just says “The authors should have considered…”

Great, add that to the next essay in 1619. It does nothing to refute the facts in 1619.

Okay, last post before I step away. There are critiques from the LEFT about the 1619 Project, r152. It's unbecoming when the left demands ideological purity. The 1619 Project -- any piece of scholarship, really, regardless of its ideological aims -- is not beyond reproach.

R153, the reasons your posts won’t suffice is the references are so, so weak.

Not even one gives a concrete example of where 1619 might be incorrect. Instead the letters are just “1619 is poor history” and blah blah blah. And NOT ONE EXAMPLE of why it may be poor history.

This is opinion based on nothing

R155, again, please give examples.

Sure there are critics to EVERYTHING that’s been written. It doesn’t finish the accuracy or the power of the originals works.

It’s the same with 1619z. Have you actually read it? It’s a bunch of essays about how slavery has affected even modern life. Each essay gives concrete examples, data, outcomes.

If someone wants to criticize, that’s fine, but he has to use examples of where the authors were wrong with citations and data, not just tell into the wind, “He’s wrong!”

[Quote] The 1619 Project -- any piece of scholarship, really, regardless of its ideological aims -- is not beyond reproach.

Of course. I welcome examples of where it goes wrong. So far, not a single citation you gives examples.

For those who are commenting and have obviously never read 1619, see the link below.

Definitely read Hannah-Jones’ first essay. You’ll understand why the right is so angry at her for stating her conclusions in such a simple, plain, difficult to rebuff way.

Then wade through the rest of the essays to understand how slavery’s effects continue to today and how blacks are treated.

The right keeps spouting that this is not a racist nation to cover for their own racist policies. After you read 1619, you’ll understand why they are so angry at it

Below is the link to 1619– I hope it’s free to nonsubscribers

The fact that every other person in Hannah-Jones’ exact position at UNC (the faculty position, the recommendation for tenure by the committee, etc) got tenure but she didn’t, shows it’s completely political.

A university system with a Republican government cannot fight against threats of reduced govt funding. Thus, the Board of Trustees, the last step of the tenure process, a process that had, at every step, supported tenure for her, voted against her.

I guess we should stop teaching Shakespeare because some people write critiques about his work

Tasteful friends, how do we feel about the glass house from which R125 throws stones?

[Quote] This is about academic freedom.

Yes, and the lack of freedom that state universities have because they are beholden to tax dollars

It is insulting to any minority group to be expected to tolerate or approve of dumbed-down standards of research.

[Quote] Maybe they just didn’t give her tenure bc she thinks the US was actually founded in 1619, and that the colonists fought the American Revolution because the British wanted to end slavery.

For literally two lines in a really long article? No, because the right wing is using 1619 to stir up some cultural battle because it has no policy ideas to govern a country

[Quote] It is insulting to any minority group to be expected to tolerate or approve of dumbed-down standards of research.

Like Fox News?

Is she the one who publicized 'The Grand Migration' and 'The Trail of Tears'?

The Atlantic

She did a lousy job and made things up.

More

R163, anyone can type anything and sign Tony Woodard to it. Particularly if they want to take a screen shot to use to troll someone they didn’t like.

R169, um the article just gives the piss poor example letter that were cited already in this thread.

The critiques are ALL based on opinions, not factual challenges. One even calls 1619 “cynical.” Again, not one fact refuted; just lots of “I don’t like it!!!”

R170, this goes over the rehashed criticism that she was wrong in saying one reason Americans broke from England is because England was considering abolishing slavery.

Critics point out that banning slavery wasn’t really being discussed much in England at the time. H-J agrees that while it wasn’t the dominant discussion it later became but cites some talk about it.

Her mentioning this takes up 2 lines in a very long article. The Politico article citing that one criticism is hundreds of times longer than the actual mention itself.

Sure, we can quibble over that. And H-J has said history isn’t a cut and dry in the matter so it could be one of the many reasons America split from England.

In general the critiques are so weak and meaningless when you actually read what people write, you immediately realize the power of 1619– so much so that people who have a stance against it can’t really refute it with any power at all.

[quote] government has given police the right to carry weapons and shoot citizens when they see fit. Of course politicians should weigh in.

Even more reason why experts and those with law enforcement experience should count more than "feelings" of lay citizens and politicians pandering to the mob.

The Joy Reid of academia...enough said.

R169 and R170, seriously, those are the best the anti-1619 people have?

Wow, that’s some pathetic criticism, which just proves that the anti-1619 reaction is purely political, not based on any real problem with 1619, but based on fear white peoples have for being called out

[Quote] The Joy Reid of academia...enough said.

Sure, Vlad.

When you win a Pulitzer, you let us know

[Quote] Even more reason why experts and those with law enforcement experience should count more than "feelings" of lay citizens and politicians pandering to the mob.

Lay citizens pay the taxes that employ and give police more rights than any citizen has. When the police are shooting up unarmed citizens, of course those citizens are going to have feelings about that.

R170, do you even understand how to evaluate facts and to understand if criticisms have a factual basis?

Just googling “challenges to 1619” isn’t really a valid and productive way to get your points across.

I wish they had given this as the reason: "We just wish he had chosen a more flattering hair color."

BOG Chairman Ramsey:

Ramsey, a Beaufort businessman whose company sells custom yachts and sport fishing boats, earned a diploma through a one-year Marine Diesel Mechanics program from Carteret Community College in 1981. But until last month, Ramsey’s UNC System biography page said he graduated from the college with a degree in Marine Propulsion, which suggests he had a two-year Associate’s degree.

[quote]She did a lousy job and made things up.

That's not remotely what Adam Serwer is arguing, R169. In fact, even the signatories of the letter claiming to find errors in her work say "We applaud all efforts to address the foundational centrality of slavery and racism to our history.” He quotes the professor who circulated the letter: "Each of us, all of us, think that the idea of the 1619 Project is fantastic. I mean, it's just urgently needed. The idea of bringing to light not only scholarship but all sorts of things that have to do with the centrality of slavery and of racism to American history is a wonderful idea .... Far from an attempt to discredit the 1619 Project, our letter is intended to help it.”

[quote] Lay citizens pay the taxes that employ and give police more rights than any citizen has. When the police are shooting up unarmed citizens, of course those citizens are going to have feelings about that.

Who pays taxes is irrelevant. My taxes build roads but I don't pretend I should be on a board that determines how to build them or how to ensure safely engineer them. I also care about medical malpractice but that doesn't mean I should be on the disciplinary board investigating and deciding licensing of those who make mistakes.

Very few "unarmed" citizens are killed by police. Perhaps recheck the stats on that. In a recent year the stats were around out of 1000 deaths by police, under 40 were unarmed. And even those who are technically unarmed may be "unarmed" in the manner of Michael Brown who was charging at a cop and could have easily overpowered him and taken his weapon.

[Quote] Who pays taxes is irrelevant. My taxes build roads but I don't pretend I should be on a board that determines how to build them or how to ensure safely engineer them.

Um, who pays taxes is the central part of the equation. Americans are paying taxes so should have a say in how they are being policed. If those roads are full of potholes, you better believe you have every right to complain.

[Quote] And even those who are technically unarmed may be "unarmed" in the manner of Michael Brown who was charging at a cop and could have easily overpowered him and taken his weapon.

Except the part where he was running away from the cop

R181, and now we understand why she was denied tenure

Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for writing fiction, too.

R182, yes they have no argument against her scholarship so they make up shit—“she’s ugly” “I hate her hair” “Here’s a random link (that I hope no one will read because I haven’t” etc

R187, has no clue what 1619 reply is but has been paid by Putin to post here

She looks like the type you'd be walking on eggshells around in her presence.

Precious look-at-me twat.

A fucking gameshow host clown with the morality of pond scum was president. Try being non-white and pulling that off.

You need to cut the shit where you convince yourselves non-whites get these cushy gigs and breaks, just for being non-white.

Journalism attracts the dumbest people on earth. Print journalists are only slightly less stupid than broadcast journalists.

These threads always bring out the worst of us.

[quote]BOG Chairman Ramsey: Ramsey, a Beaufort businessman whose company sells custom yachts and sport fishing boats, earned a diploma through a one-year Marine Diesel Mechanics program from Carteret Community College in 1981. But until last month, Ramsey’s UNC System biography page said he graduated from the college with a degree in Marine Propulsion, which suggests he had a two-year Associate’s degree.

There is a saying among black people that you have to do twice as much to get half as far as a white person. That resume may be even worst than Trump's.

Two small lines in the 1619 project?? No. She stated the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery in the colonies, full stop.

And this is someone who is supposed to be qualified for tenure?

Her essay elicited such instant reactions from historians on all sides, that the NYT was forced to make a quick, groveling clarification, see below, emphasis added:

The New York Times:

[quote]Today we are making a clarification to a passage in an essay from The 1619 Project that has sparked a great deal of debate. The passage in question states that one PRIMARY reason the colonists fought the American Revolution was to protect the institution of slavery. We recognize that our original language [suggests] that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for ALL of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for SOME of the colonists.

“Some” colonists? Like, two, one, 100, what? This was a huge misstatement of a huge fact. May have cost her a nice cushy tenured professorship for life. She got carried away with her own narrative, and ignored pre-publication pleas to revise, from her own people.

[quote] We are grateful to the many scholars whose insightful advice has helped us decide to make this change, among them Danielle Allen, Carol Anderson, Christopher L. Brown, Eric Foner, Nicholas Guyatt, Leslie Harris, Woody Holton, Martha S. Jones, Jack N. Rakove, James Brewer Stewart and David Waldstreicher.

Her recklessness with facts is not what you want JOURNALISM professors to be teaching JOURNALISM students at university level. JFC. Maybe offering her tenure was not such a great idea after all.

Right-wingers in Chapel Hill? You mean you actually found one?

There is so much bullshit being thrown in this thread we're all in danger of drowning in it. Out of a document that is a hundred pages or more, people are fixated on ONE SENTENCE. Moreover, the historians who criticized this were unable to muster more than five names to sign their letter - in spite of widely circulating it:

"Wilentz reached out to a larger group of historians, but ultimately sent a letter signed by five historians who had publicly criticized the 1619 Project in interviews with the World Socialist Web Site. He told me that the idea of trying to rally a larger group was “misconceived,” citing the holiday season and the end of the semester, among other factors. (A different letter written by Wilentz, calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, quickly amassed hundreds of signatures last week.) The refusal of other historians to sign on, despite their misgivings about some claims made by the 1619 Project, speaks to a divide over whether the letter was focused on correcting specific factual inaccuracies or aimed at discrediting the project more broadly."

It would be obvious to a neutral observer from another planet that what is now called the United States of America has had a troubled history with the enslavement of black people since 1619. It's also obvious that the so-called taming of the continent involved two major moral wrongs - the displacement of the native peoples, and the use of slaves to clear the land, build the towns and houses, and farm the land. However, that part of US history is rarely taught to students in schools. They only learn about that (if interested) as adults or in college courses.

It is also important to note that Hannah Jones was not being hired as a HISTORIAN. She was hired in Journalism, and she has been successful in that field for 25 years, so she has expertise to share with students. To deny her tenure on the basis of critiques of her project by a few historians is to overlook the fact that she was not hired to teach the 1619 project. Moreover, none of the historians has advocated the withdrawal of her tenure offer by the university. Instead, political appointees did so.

R196, you really think that professors in a social studies branch have the fortitude to oppose her? LOL!

The only thing I have to add to all this bickering is that the fear of right-wingers taking over academia seems pretty far-fetched.

That's like expecting France to win a war any time soon.

The tenure and promotion committee sends their recommendation to the provost, and then to the president, and then it goes off to the Board of Trustees. They usually act as a rubber stamp. They trust that, by the time a name has made it to them, they are vetted well enough.

UNC being a state system, it is not surprising (but very unfortunate) that there are politically motivated appointees on the board.

The mistake being made in this thread is thinking that faculty, provost, or even the president has ultimate authority. They don't. The Board of Trustees controls everything. They typically act on the advisement of the President, but they under no obligation to do so. At my small liberal arts college, the BoT is made up of alumni, wealthy donors, and some business interests in the community.

[quote] I can think of a dozen journ schools that would be thrilled to have her and where she could name her terms.

That's good, R133, she can get tenure in one of those dozen.

I would have thought The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was "the foundational centrality of our history.”

I would have thought the supply of a foreign-born labor force within the disparate colonies was one of the many parts in the prelude prior to 'the foundational centrality of our history'.

R80

[quote] The 1619 Project was a very successful exercise in marketing

Yes, just like the Kony 2012 Project.

[quote] She stated the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery in the colonies, full stop.

Except she didn't and you even quoted where she didn't.

[quote] The passage in question states that one PRIMARY reason the colonists fought the American Revolution was to protect the institution of slavery.

So...go fuck yourself.

R190- It's true. I've watched some of her symposiums about SEGREGATION on youtube and when a member of the audience stands up and makes a statement or asks her a question it's as if they're afraid of her.

R194- In spite of this the NYT will NEVER fire her. She may not have tenure aft Chapel Hill but she certainly has tenure at the NYT.

[quote]The only thing I have to add to all this bickering is that the fear of right-wingers taking over academia seems pretty far-fetched.

In that case (allowing for your crude hyperbole) you're not paying attention to what's being discussed here. Boards of Trustees have increasing control over universities, which are increasingly treated as just sites of investment whose academic qualities are just part of their branding. And those boards are overwhelmingly made up of conservatives who don't have academic credentials beyond a Bachelor's degree (or less, in the case of the UNC guy). The market should decide everything, don't you know—or at least certain people's notion of the market should.

The NYT will never fire her because her mantra is 'I am driven by rage'.

And newspaper companies sell their newspapers with constant doses of emotional conflict.

R208- She doesn't like white people or other minorities either.

In the 80s, in the south we were taught that the Civil War (The War Between the States) was about states rights. While technically not a complete mistake, but somewhat of a mischaracterization of what really happen. Where were those historians then?

She was "canceled" for 1619 by people who constantly complain about "cancel culture." Not having a Ph.D. and the weaknesses of 1619 aren't the reason. It's the audacity of even doing the 1619 project and questioning the nation's history through the lense of slavery and revealing some "larger truths" (as someone upthread said) - even if 1619 overall was shoddy.

On the flip side, she's not even considered for tenure if she didn't do 1619. It's the reason she's known, the reason she'd be a firebrand "name" and probably why she was backed in the first place.

Will be interesting to see where she goes now.

Not all of the 1619 essays are off base.

[quote]Where were those historians then?

If this is a serious question, they were being silenced, at least at the primary and secondary school level, by racist conservatives who didn't want to face the fact that Confederates never supported any "states' right" (cf. their rage at northern states' neglect of the the Fugitive Slave Act) except the "right" to buy and sell children and parents away from each other and treat human beings like property to their own profit.

[quote]On the flip side, she's not even considered for tenure if she didn't do 1619.

She was receiving fellowships and awards for her work before the 1619 Project, e.g. a MacArthur in 2017.

R196, you seem to be arguing that because she is being hired to teach journalism, it doesn't matter that she basically make shit up and pushes it as fact. Do you know how insane that sounds to most people?

I'll bet you are the type of person who also complains that public universities don't have the full support of the people who pay for them.

I understand that she's pushing a revisionist history. But I don't understand the 'Project' part.

When does this 'Project' start and finish? Who is paying for what?

Is this meant for school-children? Does she want the school curricula to be re-written?

[quote]it doesn't matter that she basically make shit up and pushes it as fact

Nice try, R215, but she's not doing that. Do keep up.

R216, I almost admire your pretense of profound ignorance.

R65- You're saying she's received ALL of these awards DON'T question her.

I heard there’s an opening at the college of Charleston.

What about Black slaveowners? They existed. Why should they have been robbed of what was legally theirs?

[quote] Two small lines in the 1619 project?? No. She stated the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery in the colonies, full stop.

Again, please read the essay. It's literally two lines.

[quote] What about Black slaveowners? They existed. Why should they have been robbed of what was legally theirs?

yes, let's obsess over the .001% distract from the 99.999%

[quote] you seem to be arguing that because she is being hired to teach journalism, it doesn't matter that she basically make shit up and pushes it as fact.

Because everyone who's ever gotten has never gotten any facts wrong?

[quote] The passage in question states that one PRIMARY reason the colonists fought the American Revolution was to protect the institution of slavery.

That isn't an historical fact either. It is her opinion.

[quote] I understand that she's pushing a revisionist history. But I don't understand the 'Project' part. When does this 'Project' start and finish? Who is paying for what? Is this meant for school-children? Does she want the school curricula to be re-written?

Huh? You have absolutely no idea what this conversation is about, do you?

The 1619 Project is a group of essays published in NY Times about how slavery has affected the US, even to the modern day. Part of it is a curriculum that schools can adopt to teach the effects of slavery. Some schools have chosen to adopt it, which means, when they are talking about American history, schools are also talking about how slavery has extended through the centuries and affects are blacks are treated today.

Today's history curriculum says that, since the Civil Rights Laws were passed, blacks are treated equally under the law. There alot that isn't taught. The Project wants to fills in those gaps to give a fuller picture.

[quote] That isn't an historical fact either. It is her opinion.

It's an opinion based on some primary sources. It's not a major opinion, but she claims it could be one of the reasons.

Again, two lines in a huge essay. Let's distract from the rest by obsessing on this, shall we?

R222 kinda like COVID

R220, the people that make this argument don’t know or ignore facts.

In my state of NC, it was made unconstitutional for the owner to free a slave, called manumission, in 1830. I was only allowable by an act of the legislature and then only for a very heroic act. I have never heard of a free black person owning a slave who wasn’t a relative by blood or by marriage in NC. It was the only way that free people could ensure their friends and loved ones weren’t sold away on a whim. I wonder if you can point me to multiple examples of what you’re claiming but I can cite dozens of examples of what I claim.

[quote]What about Black slaveowners? They existed. Why should they have been robbed of what was legally theirs?

Holy shit, apart from the asinine argument about Black slaveowners, R220 is basically endorsing slavery as a legal institution that it was wrong to violate. So runaway slaves should have been forcibly returned to their masters, right, R220? Fucking shitstain.

[quote] The Project wants to fills in those gaps to give a fuller picture.

You talk about "The Project" as though it were a corporation with staff employed to infiltrate 137,432 schools across 50 states.

R230, where is R225 implying any of that?

It's pretty clear after 230 posts that the posters defending the UNC Board of Trustees have nothing but generalizations, childish insults, and crude mischaracterizations of lines taken out of context. The essays and reports they link to never support their claims. Maybe they should just go back to jerking off to pictures of Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Get on board!

Free money is available NOW!

Thank Christ for universities that balk at offering lifetime tenure for work based on fictive statements asserted as fact—such as the claim that the 13 Colonies went to war against the British mainly to preserve the institution of slavery.

Despite r226’s airy dismissal, that claim was the MAJOR PREMISE of the entire collection of essays that she wrote the intro to. That’s why she titled it the ‘1619’ project (and not the ‘1776’ project).

She tried to find scholarly support for this major misstatement, failed, and published it anyway. From one Northwestern scholar who vigorously disputed NHJ’s claim:

[quote]Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

Her major premise has been widely and soundly discredited, and NHJ had to walk it back later. By the way, r226, what ‘primary sources’ did she rely on? She doesn’t cite any for this major mis-framing of history does she?

I have no idea what people like R233 are blathering on about. As posters upthread have said, none of that was the key issue in the Board's decision or criticism of it. In any case "one of the primary reasons" does not mean "mainly"; it means "ONE of the primary reasons."

It's not controversial that during the Revolution the British were seen as more anti-slavery and the colonists more pro-slavery. It wasn't the only motivation on either side, and there were grey areas, but it was there and weighed heavily for black Americans (most of whom were enslaved) and their enslavers. I've been reading about this since the 70s or 80s when I was in school. If you're ready to dismiss a black woman journalist writing about it now, here's Simon Schama 15 years ago on how "during the Revolutionary War there is no question that tens of thousands of Africans, enslaved in the American South, did look to Britain as their deliverer, to the point where they were ready to risk life and limb to reach the lines of the royal army"—and "George Washington could describe Dunmore as 'that arch traitor to the rights of humanity' for promising to free slaves and indentured servants."

[Quote] Her major premise has been widely and soundly discredited, and NHJ had to walk it back later.

Her major premise?????

It’s literally two lines in a long, complex essay about the effect of slavery today.

The right has cherry-picked two lines out the essay and is lying to everyone that she’s a big liar and that’s why she wasn’t given tenure.

She wasn’t given tenure SOLELY because of politics. She passed through every level of the tenure process until she got to the vote of the University Trustees. They bent to threats of the right wing govt of North Carolina and denied her tenure.

[Quote] Despite [R226]’s airy dismissal, that claim was the MAJOR PREMISE of the entire collection of essays that she wrote the intro to. That’s why she titled it the ‘1619’ project (and not the ‘1776’ project).

You obviously have not read the essays of The 1619 Project. She just wrote the first essay. Are you claiming that the other essay authors said the same thing?

Of course not. You are blathering nonsense about something you know nothing about. YOU, are the liar here

[Quote] Despite [R226]’s airy dismissal, that claim was the MAJOR PREMISE of the entire collection of essays that she wrote the intro to. That’s why she titled it the ‘1619’ project (and not the ‘1776’ project).

Um, she only wrote one essay. It’s titled the 1619 Project because that’s when slaves first came to the US.

Wow, you’re a troll

[Quote] That isn't an historical fact either. It is her opinion.

Sorry to break it to you, but people present their opinions after studying historical sources. Per R234, superstar historian Schama came to the same conclusion

During the Bicentennial Doonesbury did a whole riff on the disjunct between the war of independence and slave-owning revolutionaries. Not a new idea.

New York Times’ response to the controversial lines in her essay:

We stand behind the basic point, which is that among the various motivations that drove the patriots toward independence was a concern that the British would seek or were already seeking to disrupt in various ways the entrenched system of American slavery. Versions of this interpretation can be found in much of the scholarship into the origins and character of the Revolution that has marked the past 40 years or so of early American historiography — in part because historians of the past few decades have increasingly scrutinized the role of slavery and the agency of enslaved people in driving events of the Revolutionary period.

Her being given a chance at tenure wasn’t solely because of the 1619 Project. She has a huge, respected body of work.

This is why she was she had the position she did at the UNC School of Journalism, among the best in the country.

Everyone in the past in her exact position got tenure. Republican politics prevented her from getting it.

[Quote] Her major premise has been widely and soundly discredited, and NHJ had to walk it back later. By the way, [R226], what ‘primary sources’ did she rely on? She doesn’t cite any for this major mis-framing of history does she?

She did not walk back on it. The NYT researched it thoroughly and ultimately supported her. NYT even names the historians that did the research.

Of course, you would have to read 1619 to know that

[Quote] such as the claim that the 13 Colonies went to war against the British mainly to preserve the institution of slavery.

She never said that

Not clear why NYU, Columbia, Harvard, Yale aren't clamoring for her services. Seems like with her amazing background: NYT Pulitzer., etc. the Big Four should be slitting each others throats for her. All this big money she can generate?

Why is she stuck @ crummy UNC?? Not getting it.

[Quote] you seem to be arguing that because she is being hired to teach journalism, it doesn't matter that she basically make shit up and pushes it as fact. Do you know how insane that sounds to most people

Except she didn’t “make up shit.” The NY Time’s panel of historians supported her. As named about, Schama agreed…15 years before she wrote the essay.

What is not at all controversial is that slaves looked to Britain to save them from slavery at the time of the revolutionary war. Why would they think that if there weren’t talk about emancipation by the British? Of course this would be a reason slave owners social want to be completely independent from Britain

R244, UNC’s school of journalism is among the best in the US.

This is yet another example of the people who complain about cancel culture the most, cancelling someone.

Why is someone using her Pulitzer (for commentary!) to defend her academic chops?

She has the only cudgel she needs: the race card.

[quote] For her part, Hannah-Jones has acknowledged that she overstated her argument about slavery and the Revolution in her essay, and that she plans to amend this argument for the book version of the project, under contract with Random House.

Oops. Her bad. She has even admitted she was wrong about her major premise that the American Revolution was all about slavery.

[quote] I can think of a dozen journ schools that would be thrilled to have her and where she could name her terms. But they're not public institutions in red states,

If all those other schools are so hot to hire her as you say, then I would think her problem is easily and quickly solved.

[quote] Not clear why NYU, Columbia, Harvard, Yale aren't clamoring for her services. Seems like with her amazing background: NYT Pulitzer., etc. the Big Four should be slitting each others throats for her.

Harvard and Yale do not have full professional schools of journalism.

Harvard has a journalism school of a kind through their extension school; but it's not very prestigious, and it's not the same as a full professional school like Columbia and NYU have.

[quote] UNC’s school of journalism is among the best in the US.

R244 How do you determine a statement like that?

Which is the best school of journalism in the US?

I guess good enough that this Society for Investigative Reporting moved from Harvard to UNC in 2019.* It's also ranked no. 3 for popularity of the program. That might be in part because of the sheer number of people enrolled and graduating "During the 2018-2019 academic year, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill handed out 577 bachelor's degrees in communication and media studies. Due to this, the school was ranked #3 out of all colleges and universities that offer this degree."

*"As noted earlier in this section, in 2019 the Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting announced it would move from Harvard to UNC and the Hussman School. This move emphasizes the school’s reputation, its commitment to building diverse voices in journalism and media, and its role in the sometimes-volatile conversation around race in the modern South. Founded by three investigative reporters, one of whom is Nikole Hannah-Jones, our '03 M.A. graduate and Park Fellow, the Society is committed to increasing the pipeline of investigative journalists of color. The Hussman School off ers the Society a home, shared values, a chance to work with North Carolina’s HBCUs, and to deepen its work with other journalism schools across the country."

"overstated her argument" ≠ "was wrong about her major premise."

DO keep up. The trolls on this thread are barely even trying.

Wrong, r254. She waded into a discipline (history) that she was entirely unequipped to handle. She made a major blunder in setting out an narrative that lifelong American-history scholars knew was supported, and it blew up on her, and on the NYT. She is unqualified for academic tenure, and she knows it.

Being wrong about major facts is not a good look for a journalist.

Maybe at the end of her five-year teaching contract she can be reevaluated. But her attitude toward fact and evidence will need to change—a doubtful proposition. She has plenty of other professional options she can pursue.

... scholars knew was UNSUPPORTED ...^^^^^

[quote] . She has even admitted she was wrong about her major premise that the American Revolution was all about slavery

She did no such thing. In fact, after a deep investigation into the scholarship, the NYTs even defended her. It lists the many historians who helped with the research.

[quote] She waded into a discipline (history) that she was entirely unequipped to handle. She made a major blunder in setting out an narrative that lifelong American-history scholars knew was supported, and it blew up on her, and on the NYT. She is unqualified for academic tenure, and she knows it.

LIE LIE LIE.

So much of her work has focused on the effect of slavery on modern day America so she is an expert on in. She made no blunder and the NYTs backed her up on in. Her tenure is one at a School of Journalism, where they give tenure to major journalists, not typical academicians.

EVERY step of the process approved her for tenure but the last. THIS SHOWS it was completely political based on fear of losing state funding in a conservative state.

[quote] How do you determine a statement like that? Which is the best school of journalism in the US?

Just like when you say Harvard is among the best colleges: The quality of the people it takes, the people who are teaching, the positions graduates get in the field.

UNC is recognized as among the best.

For r228: [quote]African-American history and culture scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote: “The percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia.”

Those percentages are too high for each case to simply be examples of manumission. William Ellison, for example, a black slave owner in South Carolina, did remove several family members from slavery but then enslaved an additional 63 black people, unrelated. He was the largest black slave owner in his state, of which there were over 170 in South Carolina alone.

Undergraduate journalism is a technical degree. Lots of reporting classes plus mastery of specific skills like video, coding and working with data. It requires a project for a master's, which is all many professors have to get tenure, and research to get a PhD. How intellectual do you think an undergraduate class of prospective news readers and weather forecasters is? At all but the best schools, and UNC is something like No. 10, the faculty come from podunk newspapers and went back to get a PhD in something of no interest to anyone. Their professional experience is print and very stale. This woman would be a star wherever she went, with only MAGAs grousing about her.

People like Nikole Hannah-Jones are attempting to rewrite American history.

Or maybe people like Nikole Hannah-Jones are trying to tell a more complete and thorough American history, beyond just February for black people and March for women and, I guess, June for gays (the month when most schools are out for the summer) and everything else devoted to straight white guys.

There's another troublemaker is Dan-El Peralta -he says he wants to save Classics from Whiteness and that Classicists should knock Ancient Greece and Rome off their pedestal. The NYT had a big article about this. He teaches at Princeton.

Ha, no, r257. The historians listed are the ones who finally convinced the NYT to correct its original version:

[quote] We are grateful to the many scholars whose insightful advice has helped us decide to make this change.

I'm guessing you're not a Classicist, R264, or you'd know that's a caricature of what Padilla Peralta (along with many, many others) are doing to open up the study of Greece and Rome and take it back from white supremacists (who are still out there distorting history). Don't take every NYT story as the end-all be-all.

Tenure Is Denied

[quote] UNC is recognized as among the best.

So which do you recognize as the best?

[quote]What about Black slaveowners? They existed. Why should they have been robbed of what was legally theirs?

Also you: "Why is everyone looking at the mass shooter?? Can't you see the guy over there who's jaywalking?"

The amount of available documentary evidence for the behaviour and motivation inside the heads of certain men in the year 1619 can fit in one room.

But of course there's nothing stopping us from dreaming and making up myths. One popular dream is that The Homeland was a paradise. And that Africa = Utopia.

But the amount of available documentary evidence for the behaviour and motivation inside of life in Africa in the year 1619 can fit in one room.

But life in Africa in the year 2019 is easily evident. There are at least 15 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with active armed conflicts with the usual bloodshed, misery and slavery: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.

Care to explain, R270, how your dubious points are relevant to the propriety of the UNC Board's denying tenure to this candidate for professor of journalism? American culture can be confusing, I know.

Journalists are different from historians.

They take a bit of this and a bit of that and they sell it to the highest bidder.

[quote] UNC is recognized as among the best that those who can't afford a real university can do.

Fixed.

[Quote] So which do you recognize as the best?

I don’t think “the best” is something that can be determined objectively

[Quote] There are at least 15 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with active armed conflicts with the usual bloodshed, misery and slavery:

Still waiting for the point here and the relevance to the discussion

[Quote] The historians listed are the ones who finally convinced the NYT to correct its original version: We are grateful to the many scholars whose insightful advice has helped us decide to make this change.

Just in case anyone might think the change is something drastic, here is what the change refers to:

[Quote] We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists.

So, no she did not change her stance at all. The historians agreed with her and made a minor change in the language to make sure it’s clear she’s not talking about every colonist.

The original comment above was from R269.

R269’s comment conveniently left out exact what change they were talking about. Pretty minor change.

R273, we’re talking about the UNC school of journalism, not the entire university

R264, and why not.

So far, so much of history was written by white people from their point of view. Why not see history from another point of view?

[Quote] There's another troublemaker is Dan-El Peralta

Ooh, white people surely hate those “colored” trouble makers!

Not only did NHJ have to walk back her original thesis—that the American Revolution was fought to preserve the institution of slavery—but she was deceptive about it. She first doubled down on her original claim, then began to deny that she ever meant this “history” to be taken as factual. (Her tweets, since deleted, were preserved in screenshots.)

The NYT was also forced to amend the wording of her essay, and of NYT's own copy.

[quote]Throughout the controversy, the line about the year 1619 being “our true founding” ... came to symbolize the Times’s blurring of historical analysis with editorial hyperbole.

In making many of its changes, the NYT engaged in “stealth edits” to its 1619 text, by simply rewording original text in the online version, without bothering to advise readers of revisions.

But the source code found through internet archives, for the online version, showed that revisions had been quietly made. The stealth edits didn’t sit well with scholars.

[quote]The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit.

In other words, journalists' duty is to be factual, not engage in hyperbole, speculation, and rhetoric, without telling readers explicitly that's what they are doing. This is why Nikole Hannah-Jones was denied tenure.

Yeah, keep trying, R281, but posters upthread have debunked those misreadings over and over, giving documentation.

[quote]This is why Nikole Hannah-Jones was denied tenure.

Not according to the Board of Trustees. You're misrepresenting the whole process and its outcome.

[quote] but posters upthread have debunked those misreadings over and over, giving documentation.

No they haven’t.

[quote] In other words, journalists' duty is to be factual, not engage in hyperbole, speculation, and rhetoric, without telling readers explicitly that's what they are doing. This is why Nikole Hannah-Jones was denied tenure.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, isn't that quaint?

Everyone understands this was due to political pressure.

Nikole Hannah-Jones Receives Support in Tenure Dispute

More than 200 writers and cultural figures signed a letter opposing the University of North Carolina’s failure to give the Times Magazine correspondent tenure with her position there.

[quote] But the source code found through internet archives, for the online version, showed that revisions had been quietly made. The stealth edits didn’t sit well with scholars.

Wow, the right wing is working on overdrive here.

Scholars? She's a journalist, not an academician. She reports what she learned from the research of scholars, not do primary research herself. The NY Times ultimately backed her after a review by history scholars. The wording that was changed was to make it clearer.

[quote] In making many of its changes, the NYT engaged in “stealth edits” to its 1619 text, by simply rewording original text in the online version, without bothering to advise readers of revisions.

Actually the NYT has been very transparent about the changes it made and why it made them.

STOP LYING

R44, I refer to it as Homey D Clown hair. Can't stand this racist grifting cunt.

Considering the Board of Trustees didn't name her work on 1619 as a reason to deny her tenure, the argument is moot.

Instead they used the vague "She doesn't have the typical academic background" as if any journalist in a School of Journalism does.

In fact, the fact that she offended conservatives by spearheading the entire 1619 project is the very reason she didn't get tenure. While the right is blaring on about the mild inaccuracies, those are just the scapegoats for 1619 being threatening to white supremacists

[quote] Not only did NHJ have to walk back her original thesis—that the American Revolution was fought to preserve the institution of slavery—but she was deceptive about it.

She NEVER said that it was the only reason. She said it was one of the reasons. The NY Times history experts later altered it so it was clearer that SOME colonists may have fought to preserve slavery.

Many historians, long before her, specifically state that slaves looked to Britain to save them. To block that, it could definitely for colonists to right Britain. No one takes such a huge action as a revolution based upon only one reason.

The point is that the US is still being punished for something it banned outright in the 1860s yet other countries still practice today.

[quote] The point is that the US is still being punished for something it banned outright in the 1860s yet other countries still practice today.

Punished? So talking about and accepting its legacy is punishment?

[quote] The point is that the US is still being punished for something it banned outright in the 1860s yet other countries still practice today.

Translation: Whites are pissed off that blacks are gaining societal equity.

They can't even accept that their stupid and racist TV shows are stupid and racist so they project their stupidity and racism onto the Black shows they ripped off. How do you expect them to accept the reality that their ancestors benefited from racism at every turn?

R285 That's a very unflattering picture.

NHJ is a publicity-seeker and needs professional advice for her cause of seeking publicity.

Academic tenure is an outdated notion in the 21st century.

Our society is squirming and changing every decade. These old people need to be cleared out and EVERYBODY put on 5 year contracts.

To paraphrase a wise man from another century— Tenured academics become ‘increasingly precious, propagandist and remote from reality’. A ‘kept academic is like a kept woman who gets flabby and querulous’.

Tenure is needed more than ever in a time when state legislatures (particularly Republican) and the conservative Boards of Trustees are ready to stifle actual research in favor of their propaganda and lies, be it about climate change or racial inequality or whatever. Get rid of tenure and you'll *only have* "kept academics"—kept by corporations and their political operatives.

Tenure is a trap.

Old people get tired, stodgy and set in their ways.

Evidence for that happening in colleges, R298? I've spent much of my career adjacent to academia and I've never known a professor who "got stodgy" after getting tenure, to judge from student evaluations and my own observation. Doesn't mean there aren't any, but I'm going to be real suspicious of a generalization that works for administrations and boards, who would love nothing better than to keep switching out experienced teachers/reserchers for docile younger faculty in a state of precarity.

The quality of the graduates, for one thing.

And you've correlated this to tenured faculty? Tenure has actually been decreasing in the last few decades, as tenured positions are increasingly replaced with cheaper, often benefitless adjunct positions, so maybe you'd better look to that trend for your explanation, not at the institution of tenure.

[quote]The point is that the US is still being punished for something it banned outright in the 1860s yet other countries still practice today.

Hardly. To truly understand a country and all it's people, you have see how the past informs the present.

So much of this bullshit could have been avoided if after the Civil War the country would have embraced the formerly enslaved as Americans and respected all their "God" given inalienable rights. With all due respect, they tried with Reconstruction and then they abandoned all of the progressive changes in order to heal the union (among other reasons). This essentially lead to the south re-enslaving black people and before we pick on the south too much -- things weren't all that much better anywhere else for black people.

Sometimes you hear from some white people that their family didn't own slaves so why are they being blamed for stuff that isn't their fault. That's not the point. If you are white in America, your history isn't just a lesson plan during February. If you are white in America, you can pretty much know many things about who you are and how you came to be just from your last name. Many of you were able to benefit from a generational wealth, that isn't available to many people of color. You are not judged to be a bad person, because someone had a bad experience with someone who looks like you. If you're in a space where someone doesn't think you belong, you aren't peppered with a million questions as to why... or one of the old chestnuts "he's a diversity hire" or "she got in because of Affirmative Action".

None of this should come as any surprise to any gay person posting on this gay message board.

You're not being punished for slavery. You're just being asked to share with people who are every bit of American as you are.

R302, you're patronizing people with dark skin and treating them as a monolith.

No one denies that a large portion of black people in the US are in a bad place, which may indeed be partly attributable to the after effects of slavery. Is the way forward increasing their sense of victimhood and white-guilt posturing on social media? Are people living in crime-ridden, violent neighborhoods with bad schools and no prospects benefitted by the1619 project? What benefits the underclass child more: a stable upbringing with training that leads to job opportunities, or Ashley from suburbia learning that the US was founded on slavery?

[quote] What benefits the underclass child more: a stable upbringing with training that leads to job opportunities, or Ashley from suburbia learning that the US was founded on slavery?

Why do you suggest this is an either/or proposition? It’s not.

What R304 said. Yes, R303, it does benefit "people living in crime-ridden, violent neighborhoods with bad schools and no prospects" for the country as a whole to get a solid idea of the historical causes of societal problems, not least in order to formulate solutions. The 1619 project didn't invent this research—it only summarized what historians have been documenting and analyzing for years. But as your last sentence shows that you think poor people of color only need stronger moral models and job training (in place of education in the liberal arts and sciences), you're quite the patronizer yourself—to put the nicest gloss on it.

Ashley from suburbia often contributes to these people remaining in the underclass.

I think we should stop learning about Americans wars after WWII, because we lost all of those and it would make us hate our country.

[quote][R302], you're patronizing people with dark skin and treating them as a monolith.

[quote]No one denies that a large portion of black people in the US are in a bad place, which may indeed be partly attributable to the after effects of slavery. Is the way forward increasing their sense of victimhood and white-guilt posturing on social media?

I don't think I said any of those things. But I am going to focus on this statement.

[quote]Are people living in crime-ridden, violent neighborhoods with bad schools and no prospects benefitted by the1619 project? What benefits the underclass child more: a stable upbringing with training that leads to job opportunities, or Ashley from suburbia learning that the US was founded on slavery?

Knowing your full history gives you sense of identity and encourages a strong self worth. Black people helped build this country and that fact has gotten lost. We did a hell of a lot more than just pick cotton.

It also helps Ashley from suburbia understand where her fellow Americans come from and how we got to this point a little bit better when she has a full understanding of black history and contributions to the society.

If white people feel guilty, that's on them. I don't think I've ever met a black person who has ever asked a white person for anything other than equal treatment.

Love how many people here have an either/or attitude. Either stronger personal & community morals or knowing your particular community's history. What's wrong with a significant sense of both? Logically one would aspire to committing to a stronger, more personally benefitting set of morals after learning one's disadvantaged history. In turn a stronger community would result, as a community is merely the sum of its individual parts.

R308...Yes, people do want & deserve equality. However, equality doesn't mean equal parts for everybody to everyone. On both the left & right sides of the spectrum, and in between, ideas of what's equal vary. Equity, over-compensarion, equal across the board--all these concepts are defined differently by different individuals/groups & each one believes their idea is correct. Equality seems pretty straight forward like equality, but we all know that it means different things to different people & is thought to be achieved many different ways.

No one has made the case why Black slaveowners should have had their slaves stolen from them or why they should have been forbidden from enslaving every other race.

Because keeping people in slavery is wrong, R310, and freeing them from slavery isn't "stealing." End of story. But clearly you're a lowly troll and a contemptible shit-stirrer.

It figures a racist like you would say that to justify stealing property from Black people, R111.

Slavery is only wrong when Black people and Jews are on the receiving end of it. The rest of y'all deserve it at this point.

R313, typical What-aboutism...

R314: Typical racist denialism.

R315 at a lung cancer fund raiser: "Let's not talk about just lung cancer; let's talk about ALL cancers!"

R316 at an AIDS fundraiser: "hey, wanna listen to some Donna Summer?"

R317, they'd already be playing Donna Summer, so I wouldn't say something so redundant

Yeah, about that…

This is why Gays, Jews, and Blacks should be allowed to enslave everybody else. The problem was never slavery per se. It was and is wypipo having rights at all.

This woman admits to be 'driven by rage'.

This woman is not a journalist; they are a propagandist, a Twitterist.

We don't want twitterers in academia.

Too late, R321, there are plenty of twitterers in academia as everywhere. And people can be driven by rage at injustice to do good writing for the purpose of righting that injustice (as is the case here). Everything you say is reductive and partakes of false dichotomies.

[quote] false dichotomies.

Tenured or Untenured.

Salaried or Unsalaried.

Nikole Hannah-Jones is the future Camille Paglia.

Methinks the troll in this thread has found himself a sock puppet.

[quote] There are at least 15 countries in sub-Saharan Africa with active armed conflicts with the usual bloodshed, misery and slavery: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.

That quote at R270 is from Wiki but the subject of the continuing conflict in Africa is well documented.

It's much better documented than this current speculation about Washington's motivations.

Wait, what do you mean by “Washington's motivations” r326? Motivations in going to war for colonial independence?

Assuming you refer to Washington, the individual, are you repeating NHJ's claim that General Washington and the colonists fought the British in order to maintain the institution of slavery?

The British, who in fact were busy running sugar plantations in the Caribbean islands, with slave labor, at very time NHJ claims they were trying to end slavery in the 13 Colonies? And that therefore this prompted General Washington and all the other Revolutionary colonists to take up arms, to stop emancipation? Hahahahaha.

See, this is why NHJ is undeserving of tenure, teaching journalism, in whatever chair she applied for—she has cobbled together a baseless revision of history that many people now believe. Her 1619 narrative, unsupported by and even contrary to historical evidence has cost her an automatic tenure appointment.

She reportedly had a meltdown when historians began to challenge her 1619 project—historians from left, right, and center ... including Black historians like the professor at Northwestern, who refused to confirm NHJ's propositions during prepublication fact-checking.

And by the way, the idea that colleges and universities are now being threatened by “right wing” boards of trustees is ludicrous ... the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in academia is something like 30 to one. This would be laughable if it weren’t such a tragic misunderstanding of the tenure process in general, and NHJ's tenure prospects and qualifications specifically.

Oh no! No tenure? But she got a Pulitzer for Commentary opinion!! Doesn’t that get her a lifetime professorship, to spread her idea of doing journalism to countless new waves of eager & impressionable young journalism students??

No.

In fact, maybe tenure just isn’t a good fit for this particular candidate at present. If ever.

This is why Black people should be allowed to enslave everyone else.

r327 ......she reportedly had a meltdown"

Source? Otherwise, bullshit.

[quote] To paraphrase a wise man from another century— Tenured academics become ‘increasingly precious, propagandist and remote from reality’. A ‘kept academic is like a kept woman who gets flabby and querulous’

Quoting that timeless and not-at-all sexist "wisdom" really bolsters your case!

I never understand why it's anyone else's business (other than the applicant's) as to what a university or college decides to do or not do with a tenure case.

Ultimately the business of running the institution has to fall to the president and the board of trustees. If they have their reasons for denying her tenure that do not break the conditions of her original hiring contract, then it's absolutely their choice.

She will find good tenured work elsewhere, given her fame and her prizes. If they don't want her at UNC, it's their loss; but it's also ultimately their own decision to make.

Funny, you may quibble with her tiny assertion that slavery was a reason to fight for independence but the committee has already stated that she had every qualification for getting tenure EXCEPT she didn’t have a tradition academic background.

That mean, all the “SHE LIED!” Bull crap coming from the right is moot.

R332, you would be perfectly correct to think that about a private institution, but since the taxpayers paid to build and maintain UNC, then they are stakeholders.

[quote] ... the committee has already stated that she had every qualification for getting tenure EXCEPT she didn’t have a tradition academic background.

That’s because traditional academics care about facts and evidence. She doesn’t. She cares about her narrative, r333. She'll be fine. She can find a better fit in other professional avenues.

R334 is a genocidal terrorist:

R336, you’ve been following a post from 2017?? That’s creepy

[Quote] That’s because traditional academics care about facts and evidence. She doesn’t. She cares about her narrative.

Her narrative was supported by many, including Schwama, as mentioned above . The NYTimes investigation done by well known historians even concluded she was right.

So the whole “she made up shit” narrative from the right—-is, in fact, made up shit

[Quote] That’s because traditional academics care about facts and evidence. She doesn’t

No, you idiot. They said she doesn’t have an academic background like coming from other academic positions and such.

Did you even go to college? Or are the colleges in Russia that bad?

[Quote] you would be perfectly correct to think that about a private institution, but since the taxpayers paid to build and maintain UNC, then they are stakeholders.

And this is exactly why the Republican government of North Carolina can do easily pressure UNC to not give her tenure. It happens all the time with state universities. They depend on the state budgets so do whatever the state leaders demand

Wrong (again!) r339–

The 1619 Project was absolutely promoted—by the Times, and by Hannah-Jones herself—as an effort to recast 1619 as country's founding. On the newspaper's website, a special online version 1619 was introduced as follows:

[quote] The 1619 project “aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”

You won’t find that wording on the NYT website, bc the NYT kicked it down the memory hole, by stealth-deleting it.

Let’s look at some of NHJ's postpub tweets. Oh, here's one! “We are talking the founding of America. And that is 1619.” The banner pic in her (former) profile had the date 1776 struck out, with “1619” inserted underneath.

Source: The Washington Post, r330. She had a meltdown. After NYT published a colleague's opinion column calling 1619 a failure. In her own paper! Wah!

She looks like she graduated from the Bozo The Clown Memorial Clown School.

R343, whenever you engage in ad hominem attacks, you know you’ve lost

R343 How dare you suggest there's a resemblance between this woman and Bozo The Clown!

R341, I see absolutely nothing scandalous about that. Yes, 1619 is looking at America from a different angle than we’re used to—and that’s got your knickers in a bunch?

R341, How DARE she claim that America was metaphorically established in 1619!!!

Nikole Hannah Jones is half and half- she's half black and half white. I bet if she had been born with much more caucasian features her life would have taken a very different trajectory.

Her life's mission would not be ending SEGREGATION in NYC'S schools and the 1619 Project and trying to rewrite American history.

R 346 R347 when someone says, “true founding,” they are not speaking metaphorically.

That was her after-the-fact claim, oh I didn’t really mean it that way. But look at her essay.

She got carried away with her own narrative, and claimed that the colonists fought the American Revolution in order to perpetuate slavery. And now people believe this.

It was controversial when she published it, and she had to walk it back. Scores of award-winning American Revolution scholars and other journalists disagreed with her claim.

She can be reevaluated for tenure later.

R346 when someone uses an after-the-fact defense, oh I didn’t mean it that way, they are gaslighting.

The 1619 project states the American Revolution was fought to perpetuate slavery, and now people believe that.

You think that’s fair comment. Have to disagree.

[Quote] The 1619 project states the American Revolution was fought to perpetuate slavery, and now people believe that.

Please. It’s 2 lines of a long, complex article.

The right’s focus on this is just part of the misinformation campaign against her.

Her offer was changed to a set term with no tenure after a reasonable expectation of a position with tenure. The offer was revoked because the mega-donor who is complaining is a conservative. He publishes the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. He's whining about impartial coverage, but his paper crapped all over Bill Clinton. He doesn't want race looked at--at all.

Some of the consistent posters on this thread who keep decrying any sort of courses that teach about the history of systemic racism in the US need to read the following CNN article. The article identifies and describes hundreds of black, Mexican, and Chinese enclaves in 30 states burned over the course of sixty years, people driven off their own land and never recompensed, people lynched or murdered without benefit of trial. The denial is absurd, as though instances of racism by white people in the US have been exaggerated or are isolated instances. I'm a white person, and many of ancestors came to the US after the Civil War, but I have benefitted, as have ALL white people in the country, from the assumption of superiority to other races, and the doors that are automatically opened while the same doors exclude others.

R353 that post is worthy of its own thread. Your post is about the 20th century. See the excellent WSJ pieces, not paywalled.

This thread is about Nikole Hannah-Jones, and the exaggerated and ahistorical claims the 1619 project made, resulting in her being denied tenure as UNC-CH.

Except that that 1619 project was NEVER referenced by the Board of Trustees who made the decision. That is a right-wing, white supremacist talking point that has been attempting non-stop to delegitimize the entire project based upon a very narrow reading of one sentence out of hundreds of pages. And why are there people on this site who keep beating this drum? Why is it SO CRUCIAL to you that no one take a look at the project in its entirety? There are lots of gay men who would be delighted to see a history course celebrating gay successes and also retelling all those who were essentially martyred or exiled because of their sexual orientation through our history. And we would want straight people to read or hear about that. Why is it a terrible thing to have black people read or hear about their contributions to the American tapestry and also their martyrdom or exile? And why is it a terrible thing if white people in America find out what their ancestors did to black people over the centuries?

[quote] This thread is about Nikole Hannah-Jones, and the exaggerated and ahistorical claims the 1619 project made, resulting in her being denied tenure as UNC-CH.

Except that she didn't make any exaggerated or ahistorical claims (certainly, one small claim was controversial but not at all debunked). While her involvement in 1619 angered white supremacists in the GOP and caused the GOP government of North Carolina to block her tenure, it is not at all the reason the Board of Trustees gave for its blocking it.

Bill Clinton should’ve been arrested, imprisoned, and water boarded for DADT and DOMA.

His wife should’ve been tried for first-degree murder in the death of Christopher Stevens.

You Clinton defenders are homophobic scum.

whoa - the mentally ill brigade has arrived

R356

One small claim? The 1619 project is full of lies.

It's funny how black supremacists make everything in this country about them. Or it would be funny if legitimate institutions didn't give them oxygen. NHJ is better off at The Root with her fellow supremacist Michael Harriot.

“Black supremacist“ is just another way low-key racists use the N-word without actually saying it.

[quote] One small claim? The 1619 project is full of lies.

and they are....?

....crickets after typical right wing innuendo gets challenged...

[quote] Bill Clinton should’ve been arrested, imprisoned, and water boarded for DADT and DOMA.

Oh stop.

By signing DOMA, he prevented the majority GOP Congress from proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage--and the GOP at the time had the votes and state legislatures to do it.

DADT was the compromise vs banning gays from the military altogether.

Looking back, Clinton actually set the stage for gays working openly in the military and the legalization of gay marriage.

[quote] His wife should’ve been tried for first-degree murder in the death of Christopher Stevens.

Funny, 8...yes 8 congressional committees, after a total of 33 hearings on Benghazi--ALL of them GOP-led, concluded she was not at fault...

How many Congressional hearings will Jan 6 insurrection by white supremacists were 5 people died get?

A BIG FAT ZERO

Trustees Accept Resubmission of Hannah-Jones Tenure Bid

That’s because freedom fighters are not terrorists, R364.

R362: stop trying to absolve Bill Clinton of his responsibility for gay and lesbian service members being dishonorably discharged.

And stop trying to absolve Hillary Clinton for her role in the premeditated murder of Christopher Stevens. The moment she said “what difference does it make?” That proved her guilt. Those are the words of a guilty woman. Those are the words of an enabler of murderous genocidal psychopaths. She is an accessory to Islamic terrorism against gays. That showed that she should at least be tried for first-degree murder and the death penalty should never, ever, ever be brought up the table for any reason whatsoever. All crimes against homosexuality or capital crimes. No exceptions. The only reason the Clintons have not been prosecuted for their crimes against homosexuality is because they are white, gentile, and heterosexual. This changes now or there will be hell to pay.

[Quote] The moment she said “what difference does it make?” That proved her guilt. Those are the words of a guilty woman. Those are the words of an enabler of murderous genocidal psychopaths.

8 GOP-led congressional panels disagree with you. Despite the political grandstanding, they ALL concluded she did nothing wrong.

[Quote] stop trying to absolve Bill Clinton of his responsibility for gay and lesbian service members being dishonorably discharged.

And the GOP which pushed for that and all voted for it don’t get any blame?

R367, Russian troll alert

[quote]Um, that's what scholarly articles do. They gather evidence and make conclusions based on the history.

Do you understand the difference between conclusions and conjecture? Check Merriam Webster.

Then again, modern academia is such maoist double talk, they probably amount to the same thing.

[quote] This is a false dicotomy.

It’s “dichotomy,” chief, and it’s not false at all. You’re not supposed to cite random facts, and then start announcing victim-agenda-driven “truths” totally unrelated or unsupported by the facts.

[quote] Russian troll alert

Oh good, this creature is in the thread.

[Quote] Then again, modern academia is such maoist double talk, they probably amount to the same thing.

You didn’t make it to college, did you?

[Quote] Do you understand the difference between conclusions and conjecture? Check Merriam Webster.

You understand the difference between academic historian and journalist? Check Merriam Webster

[Quote] Do you understand the difference between conclusions and conjecture? Check Merriam Webster.

And yet many historians, as the NYTimes review of the controversy, agreed with her conclusions. So not conjecture

So she got what she wanted by playing the race card?

Well done, Madam. Nothing can stop you now.

[quote] You understand the difference between academic historian and journalist? Check Merriam Webster

Nope, doesn’t work that way. You wouldn’t look in the dictionary to make that distinction about the work they do. It’s funny that you think you would though!

[quote] And yet many historians, as the NYTimes review of the controversy, agreed with her conclusions. So not conjecture

Yes because we all know that if people agree with you, you are per se correct.

And if a LOT of people agree with you, you’re even MORE correct!

[quote] You didn’t make it to college, did you?

Interesting that your argument is so unsupportable that you have to switch straight to ad hominem. We condole you.

R379, huh?

The NY Times, in an effort to understand if the criticisms were correctly, created a team of well known historians to review the article. For the literally two lines claiming that one of the reasons Americans fought for independence was because the British were against slavery, the historian team found there was much evidence that slaves looked to Britain for freedom and that some Americans indeed may have fought to keep slavery among many other reason. They said that the essay should clarify that “some” and “not all” who fought the British may have had that reason.

R380, no his argument is so ridiculous that it’s obvious he has no clue how academia works

R379, the panel of historians agreeing with her aren’t just random people. They’re experts in the subject matter

Yes, I understand that the right wants to vilify her for spearheading the 1619 project. The right is embarrassed by their role in that history and want to cover it up.

So they work hard to vilify her personally. She has bad hair! Her work is wrong! She lied! She using the race card!

All of it to avoid having to discuss the role of racism in our country and how the effects of slavery continue today.

[quote] Interesting that your argument is so unsupportable that you have to switch straight to ad hominem.

I'm sorry to say, R380, that 20% of Datalounge is incapable of debate. So they use abuse instead.

[Quote] You wouldn’t look in the dictionary to make that distinction about the work they do.

Why not? A dictionary is as good as any place to look

[Quote] Interesting that your argument is so unsupportable that you have to switch straight to ad hominem.

It was in response to his argument that academia is Maoist talk. The troll doesn’t support that whatsoever but I have to support why I think he never set foot in college.

My argument is that it’s pretty obvious from his idiotic statement about academia.

[Quote] Do you understand the difference between conclusions and conjecture? Check Merriam Webster.

Conclusions and conjecture? Apples and oranges. They’re not particularly related except that conclusions can be based on conjecture.

I conclude so-and-so is the murder because (conjecture) he doesn’t have a verifiable alibi but likely has a motive.

The right is just displaying its white supremacy.

America is perfect. Slavery and racism are in the past. Blacks are equal. The Civil War was fought to protect states rights not to defend slavery.

The decision by the board of trustees to reconsider all of this that R365 mentions has been taken at the suggestion of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation charitable trust.

Hussman may have given enough to get the J school named after himself but the RWJF are mega-donors and have given almost $150 million to the medical school and health system over the years and continue to award $4-5 million per year in grants. If money talks then the RWJF has the ear of the board of trustees.

I think the chances of NHJ getting tenure have greatly improved.

R390, it was threatened defunding from the Republicans that caused her to be denied tenure in the first place.

R391, it was Hussman emailing the trustees that caused it. Hussman ha admitted to as much after he found out, too late, that all emails to the board of trustees are public records.

[quote] Why not? A dictionary is as good as any place to look

No, dearheart, a dictionary does not give you a comparative description of the job responsibilities of an historian and a journalist.

[quote] The right is just displaying its white supremacy.

No, this has nothing to do with the right or white supremacy.

This has to do with supporting your theory with evidence, not espousing a theory you haven’t supported with facts just because it strengthens your worldview or your talking points.